Hamas Mobilises Thousands in Gaza as Fears of Internal Violence Mount

WASHINGTON — Hamas ordered thousands of fighters to return to Gaza this weekend, a rapid and public mobilisation that officials and analysts say is aimed at reasserting the group’s authority after an uneasy ceasefire — but which critics warn risks triggering a wave of internal violence as rival militias and clan networks resist disarmament. The movement of armed units, checkpoints and patrols across the densely populated enclave followed days of intense diplomacy and raised fresh questions about whether a fragile calm will hold or whether Gaza will descend into internecine conflict even as international mediators push to stabilise the territory.

Hamas spokesmen framed the order as a matter of restoring law and order after two years of war and chaos. Senior commanders were quoted describing the mobilisation as necessary to prevent looting, revenge attacks and criminality after the partial withdrawal of Israeli forces under a U.S.-brokered deal. But eyewitnesses, independent monitors and several regional sources reported rapid deployments in central Gaza City, Rafah and Khan Younis — including checkpoints set up at neighbourhood entrances and armed patrols moving into areas previously controlled by other factions. Those moves have already produced local clashes in some districts, heightening fears of a new phase of violence that would be Palestinian-on-Palestinian and handmatic to the enclave’s worst moments.

What Hamas says — and what critics fear

Hamas leaders have argued they must move swiftly to fill the policing vacuum left by the destruction of civil institutions over two years of hostilities. The group’s public justification is straightforward: with municipal police structures shredded and civilian order frayed, armed units must secure the main arteries of the territory, protect returning civilians and prevent the spread of criminal gangs. A senior Hamas official told reporters in Gaza that the mobilisation was temporary and intended to “preserve safety” while international monitors and technical teams set up verification and reconstruction mechanisms.

Opponents and outside observers read the manoeuvre differently. Many see Hamas’s call-up as a consolidation of power that will include targeted measures against rival armed groups — from clan-based militias to Islamist splinter cells — some of which have resisted Hamas control or cooperated with external actors. The Financial Times and other outlets cited eyewitness accounts and intelligence assessments that described gunbattles in neighbourhoods where clans have long-held influence, and reported that Hamas has demanded the disarmament or integration of other armed groups within tight deadlines. Critics warn that those deadlines and forced surrenders could provoke reprisals, kidnappings and summary justice that would spread violence beyond isolated skirmishes.

Signs on the ground: clashes, abductions and checkpoints

Local reporting and social-media footage — some coming from journalists inside Gaza and others from monitoring groups — documented episodes of armed clashes and dramatic enforcement actions. Multiple accounts on Saturday described incidents in which Hamas fighters fired on groups protesting detentions or resisting orders, and at least one outlet reported that members of a prominent local clan were detained in an operation that escalated into armed confrontation. The Jerusalem Post and other regional sources carried early reports of Hamas shooting at rioters following alleged abductions of clan figures — a development that illustrates how quickly law-enforcement measures can slip into violent showdowns.

The scale of the mobilisation has added to the nervousness. The BBC and other broadcasters reported that Hamas recalled as many as several thousand fighters to Gaza’s main urban centres in recent days, drawing some parallels to the group’s emergency musters at earlier turning points in the conflict. The return of combat-ready personnel has meant more visible firepower in public spaces: armoured vehicles, checkpoints on key junctions, and the redeployment of tunnel-network veterans. For inhabitants trying to return to damaged homes, the presence of so many armed men is a double-edged signal — it promises protection from looting but also raises the prospect of being caught up in wartime reprisals.

International diplomacy and the security vacuum

The mobilisation unfolded against the backdrop of frantic international diplomacy aimed at converting a ceasefire into a sustainable political arrangement. A U.S.-led initiative that won initial agreement from Hamas and Israel envisages phased prisoner releases, humanitarian access and an eventual political transition for Gaza that includes disarmament mechanisms — proposals that hinge on credible security guarantees from outside actors. But Hamas’s rapid reassertion of force undercuts some negotiators’ hopes for a quick, internationally supervised handover of policing duties and raises doubts about who would oversee verification of disarmament.

Regional mediators — notably Egypt and Qatar — moved to tamp down the risk of escalatory reprisal. Diplomatic contacts this weekend focused on channels that could provide neutral security monitors and on sequencing the disarmament of militias in a way that avoids sudden, unilateral crackdowns. Yet officials acknowledge that any external security presence will require buy-in from both Israel and Hamas, and that rival factions’ mistrust of both parties complicates design of an acceptable international role. The Financial Times warned that some groups, including Israeli-backed clans in the south, have balked at surrendering arms, foreshadowing protracted confrontations if compromises are not found fast.

Human cost and humanitarian consequence

The immediate humanitarian implications are stark. Gaza’s infrastructure is shattered: water systems, hospitals and power stations are in fragile repair, and the return of thousands of displaced civilians is only just beginning under the ceasefire’s first phase. Any surge in internal fighting threatens to reopen displacement, interrupt aid deliveries and complicate urgently needed repairs to power lines and desalination plants. Humanitarian agencies and the UN have warned that renewed violence would imperil the fragile logistics networks that have only just begun to deliver supplies to battered neighbourhoods. Local hospitals, already running on backups and international support, could be overwhelmed by fresh casualties.

For many Gazans, the fear is not purely hypothetical. Families returning to previously evacuated districts told reporters they fear an environment in which armed actors settle scores without due process. Civil-society leaders expressed alarm about the prospect of summary detentions and about the potential for abuses when fighters are granted broad powers to “restore order.” Amnesty groups and human-rights observers are already documenting incidents, and international legal advocates warn that any heavy-handed crackdowns would draw condemnation and complicate reconstruction funding.

What could avert wider bloodshed — and what will observers watch for next.

Three practical measures could reduce the odds of the mobilisation devolving into destructive internal conflict. First, transparent, independent monitoring of the handover arrangements — whether by the UN, an Arab League mission, or a coalition of trusted regional actors — would reduce the perception that one faction can act with impunity. Second, a credible sequencing of disarmament that pairs weapons collection with security guarantees and protective roles for locally acceptable forces would lower incentives for armed resistance. Third, immediate support for basic services — power, water, medical access — would diminish the human desperation that often fuels vigilantism and clan revenge. Absent these steps, analysts warn, the combination of armed reassertion and unresolved political bargaining could produce a cycle of tit-for-tat violence.

International capitals are now measuring both political risk and humanitarian cost. Western governments that helped design the ceasefire have signalled readiness to accelerate aid and to deploy monitoring assets if Hamas and Israel agree to defined roles, but they are cautious about endorsing any unilateral action that could legitimize heavy-handed security measures. Israel, for its part, has warned against the entrenchment of hostile militias but has limited appetite for direct re-entry into Gaza under the ceasefire terms; that gap — between Israel’s security concerns and Gaza’s internal governance questions — is where the risk of escalation now sits.

For now, Gaza’s streets hold a brittle calm. The mobilisation of fighters may have restored an immediate, visible order in some districts, but it has also sharpened divisions and left civilians caught between the competing imperatives of safety and justice. Whether the reassertion of armed control becomes a stabilising force or the opening act of internecine strife will depend on near-term diplomatic skill, tangible guarantees for disarmament, and the ability of humanitarian agencies to keep aid flowing while protecting civilians from renewed harm. The coming 72 hours will be telling — and, as many Gazans know only too well, the difference between a fragile peace and renewed catastrophe can hinge on a single confrontation in a crowded alley.

— Reporting by Nick Ravenshade. Original analysis by NENC Media Group. Sources: Financial Times reporting from Gaza and regional capitals; Reuters coverage of the Gaza ceasefire and follow-on developments; BBC live reporting and local correspondents; The Jerusalem Post live updates; UN and humanitarian agency situation notes.